Can anyone explain the origin of the fat little angels (technically called putti) which float incessantly around in Renaissance and Barroque art? the Encyclopaedia Britannicasays that they are based on images of Eros (the Greek Cupid), but can’t seem to decide whether these are from classical times or the 15th century. Modern depictions of Cupid on Valentine’s Day cards or in Bugs Bunny cartoons always look like an ugly little putto carrying a bow and arrow (and wearing a diaper), but in classical mythology (and art, AFAIR) he was always a young man. (You think Psyche would fall for one of those tots??) Furthermore, they are supposedly meant to represent cherubim (I’ve often heard them called cherubs), but they sure don’t look like any biblical description of cherubim (or any other type of angel) I’ve ever read!
An intersting question, although I doubt there’s one definitive explaination that would explain the putti explosion in the art of the Renaissance.
Some things to consider …
Eros, the son of Aphrodite, was sometimes portrayed as a winged baby in Greek art. A nice example from the 4th century BC can be found at:
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/03/hm3_1_1c.html
And while it’s true that Eros was usually (but not always) portrayed as a youth in classical Greek art, more and more representations of him as a young child or baby pop up in the hellenistic period. During this time, artists begin depicting a greater variety of people – old, young, poor, thin, and so on, in contrast to the very ideal depictions of athletic people at the height of their strength and beauty that had been more popular in the past. It is conceivable that artists may have made the choice to show Eros as a baby at least in part because a baby provides a visual and thematic contrast to adult figures.
We also see a similar trend in Renaissance art. Around the same time, the infant Jesus begins to show up more and more as a plump baby, as opposed to the (scary, IMHO) midget-like mini-adult that was more common in the art of the Middle Ages.
So back to the putti, the thinkers of the Renaissance also had a great interest in allegory. The association of children and babies with innocence is possibly a factor. And we should never underestimate the power of the “there’s no accounting for taste” theory, so that while some artists may have included baby-like angels for actual reasons, they may have simply caught on like a house afire, and were duplicated at the request of patrons who wanted the absolute latest thing.
Thanks, delphica! That is quite interesting. I, too have always found the homunculus-Jesuses to be a little bizzare looking. It sometimes looks to me like the BVM is holding a monkey! (Sorry if I’ve suddenly ruined 1000+ years of otherwise beautiful and moving iconography for someone out there.) Fashion obviously played a big role. I’ts hard to imagine a sudden craze for four-headed monsters (the biblical image of cherubim!); nevertheless, its quite a leap from that (which is strangely never seen in religious art) to putti.
That’s not th Biblical image of Cherubim – it’s th description of the creatures in the vsion of Ezekiel. I’ve heard convincing arguments that the cherubim resembled the Assyrian bull-men.
I think that the suggestions about Eros are close to the truth. IIRC there are similar lying baby–creatures in Roman art. I’ve gor such a flying “cherub” on a crab in a book of Pompeiian wall-art. This long predates Christian art. How exactly this was copied during the Renaissance, and got the name of the Great and Terrible Cherubim attached to it I do not know.
I think this question has been sufficiently answered, but in case anyone else is interested, here is an earlier discussion on cherubim: (Don’t let the title fool you–someone hijacked it, and it stayed that way.)
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=9185
You’re right of course, Cal, except that Ezekiel himself identifies these beings as cherubim during his second encounter with them (Ez. 10, esp. vs 20-22). (His first encounter with them, which encludes the most complete biblical description of them, except for a name, is in Ez. 1:5-14). My New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd Edition also describes cherubim in its notes as “sphinxlike” or “griffinlike” and as “winged, human-headed lions or bulls” and calls Ezekiel’s cherubim “uncharacteristic”! I believe this image of them may relate more to the symbolic cherub statues and tapestries that adorned the Ark and Temple and be based on archeological research into similar items from related cultures. In any event, neither image seems to exist much (at all?) in religious art, contrary to the wholly unbiblical putti.
The thread provided by Mjollnir (thanks!) also mentioned the archeological description, and contrasted cherubim and seraphim, but still failed to answer my question of what artist read Ezekiel and thought, “I wonder if anyone would noticed if I painted those as little fat babies?”